On Oct 6, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Jim Devine wrote: > While makes a lot of sense in most cases, how does this deal with pure > fiat money, i.e., money that's based on the power of the state to > restrict its supply (and to make an artificial demand, as with > requiring that people pay taxes using the fiat money)? What about pure > commodity money, where something is used as money simply because it's > standardized and scarce? Maybe the author needs to define what he > means by "money"?
Why should he have to do that? *The* definition of money is stated on the front of every Federal Reserve Note: "legal tender for all debts public and private." Shane Mage "All things are an equal exchange for fire and fire for all things, as goods are for gold and gold for goods." Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr, 90 _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
